Nick Clegg’s Sickening Israel Bashing

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg may be surging in the U.K. election polls, but as Nile Gardner, Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, argues below, his eagerness to demonize Israel while encouraging her enemies deserves closer scrutiny.

After Thursday night’s UK party leaders’ foreign policy debate, it’s important to take a look at Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg’s willingness to vilify Israel, and his inclination towards bashing the Israelis over the head. I’ve written about Clegg’s distinctly anti-American views and his complete disregard for the NATO alliance, but his policies towards Israel deserve attention as well.

Israel is a close ally of both Great Britain and the United States, the only full democracy in the Middle East along with Iraq, and is under constant fire from Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah. Its very existence is threatened by the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, which has malevolently warned of another Holocaust. Yet, the leader of the Liberal Democrats still thinks it’s necessary to demonise Israel, one of our only friends in the region. He’s doing everything but directly calling Gaza an Israeli-administered concentration camp.

In his statements, Clegg has drawn a dangerous and false parallel between the Israelis and Islamist terrorist groups. For example he wrote a piece for The Guardian in January 2009 entitled “We Must Stop Arming Israel” condemning Israel’s response to Hamas attacks, and in effect calling for the EU to isolate and even sanction Israel:

Brown must stop sitting on his hands. He must condemn unambiguously Israel’s tactics, just as he has rightly condemned Hamas’s rocket attacks. Then he must lead the EU into using its economic and diplomatic leverage in the region to broker peace. The EU is by far Israel’s biggest export market, and by far the biggest donor to the Palestinians. It must immediately suspend the proposed new cooperation agreement with Israel until things change in Gaza, and apply tough conditions on any long-term assistance to the Palestinian community.

One year on from Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli government continues to imprison 1.5 million Palestinians and prevent the rebuilding of its shattered infrastructure. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, described by the UN fact-finding mission as “collective punishment”, stops reconstruction materials and humanitarian aid from reaching those who so desperately require it… The confinement and punishment of an entire population is no way to bring about peace for all the people of the Middle East.

The legacy of Operation Cast Lead is a living nightmare for one and a half million Palestinians squeezed into one of the most overcrowded and wretched stretches of land on the planet. How is the peace process served by sickness, mortality rates, mental trauma and malnutrition increasing in Gaza? Is it not in Israel’s enlightened self-interest to relieve the humanitarian suffering? … No peaceful coexistence of any kind is possible as long as this act of collective confinement continues.

While Nick Clegg has made it a personal mission to publicly whip the Israelis for defending their own country, he has remained remarkably silent in the media about Iranian backing for terrorist groups, Tehran’s calls to wipe Israel off the map, and the massive levels of hatred directed at Israel from within the United Nations, not least the UN’s Human Rights Council. I don’t recall any op-eds by Clegg warning against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or calling for an end to the persecution of Israel by Islamist states. Nor has he written pieces in support of the democracy protestors in Iran, many of whom have been brutally beaten, raped, and in some cases murdered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.

As a former EU bureaucrat, Clegg brings with him to Westminster the sneering condescension towards Israel which is so pervasive in Brussels and Strasbourg. It is a destructive approach that undermines a close British ally while encouraging Israel’s enemies. There is an important distinction between a free, democratic society like Israel, acting in self-defence, and brutal terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hizbollah. Clegg’s drawing of moral equivalence between the two sides is both sickening and offensive.

31 Comments so far ↓

Peace in the middle east is political, Israel is bleeding allies through the actions of the right wing. I hope they can make a deal while the Israels hold most of the cards. Every day this seems less likely.

What Israel has done to the civilians of Gaza is awful and everyone can see it. Dragging out the same old tired polemic about Israel’s neighbours doesn’t pass for an excuse for war crimes against Gaza’s CIVILIAN POPULATION. I will definitely be voting Lib Dem, you just confirmed it for me, thanks.

Calling someone who is as well-spoken, articulate and eloquent as Nick Clegg “sickening and offensive” is just so over the top ridiculous. Your bias could be described as fanatical.

And besides, wrote Clegg in the article you linked to:

“Of course, Israel has every right to defend itself. It is difficult to imagine what it must be like to live with the constant threat of rocket attacks from a movement which espouses terrorist violence and denies Israel’s right to exist. But Israel’s approach is self-defeating: the overwhelming use of force, the unacceptable loss of civilian lives, is radicalising moderate opinion among Palestinians and throughout the Arab world.”

Seems fair-minded enough to me. What’s hard to accept or understand about this situation? Honestly, if Clegg’s position and language makes you feel that uncomfortable then YOUR BIAS simply runs too deep. The language you use; “vilify”, “bashing”, “malevolently”, “demonize”, “dangerous”, “destructive”, “brutal”, “sickening”, is so extreme and provocative compared with Clegg’s rational, reasoned and calm approach. It’s painfully obvious which approach is the one that undermines peace.

As canadian points out, you try to stigmatize Clegg’s views as politically incorrect, without troubling to refute anything he writes.

Remember, from Dec. 08 until Jan. 09, at least 400 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israel. In the previous seven years, 17 Israeli civilians had been killed by Palestinian rocket attacks. What is the strategic benefit and moral virtue of the US and UK continuing to fund that approach? And “not funding that attack” is a far cry from “abandoning Israel,” as you are no doubt aware.

You know you have no leg to stand on, so you resort to emotional language instead of dealing with anything that Clegg is talking about.

Clegg may be well spoken and eloquent but it does not make him less sickening. In the contrary, it makes him even more sickening. *** Luckily current Canadian government distinguish between democratic state and terrorist enclave. 400 Palestinian civilians? First, most of them were Hamas operatives and many were killed in crossfire. Many were listed as killed but were not and many were never born. *** How many Serbian civilians were killed by NATO airstrikes?

@Victor: So if we agree that Clegg is eloquent, then it must be his position alone (and not his tactics or presentation) that you find “sickening”. Can you illustrate why it is “sickening”? That’s a very strong word that implies action or words that are hateful, highly unethical, devious, or inhumane. Most normal human beings don’t have much tolerance for behaviour considered “sickening” and it’s usually not something that’s open to wide interpretation. You have to be able to back that up with at least one clear example or reason, don’t you? So far all I see is name-calling and hyperbole.

Here, Victor. Since you were apparently unable to read the link, let me quote the relevant part for you:The IDF report on casualties first appeared in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday. Conducted by the IDF’s Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, the 200-page report identified more than 1,200 Palestinian deaths and listed casualties by name.
According to the Post, the CLA said “580 of these 1,200 had been conclusively ‘incriminated’ as members of Hamas and other terrorist groups.” The CLA said 300 were “non-combatants”–women, men over 65 and children aged 15 and under. The CLA said the remaining 320 were all men, and estimated that two-thirds were “terror operatives,” the Post said. … Yes, whether there were 895 civilian deaths in Gaza, or “only” 405, the number the CLA seems prepared to acknowledge, most people would agree that far, far too many civilians died and suffered during the brief but violent Gaza conflict.

That’s at least 400 civilians killed according to the IDF!

I’m sure that these facts will lead you to reconsider your views on this issue.

Nick Clegg said this: “Our strategic interests will not be served unless we release ourselves from that spell of default Atlanticism which has prevailed so strongly since Suez.”
In other words, he would break the special relationship with America and go align himself with continental Europe.

That worries me much more than what he said about Israel.

For Britain to desert America would be the most unkindest cut of all.
We should have let the Nazis have them.

@mlloyd I can read the link but this link is nothing but a hearsay, neither the original report nor even JP article. With creative journalism we have seen recently it is less than $0.02 worth.

“That’s at least 400 civilians killed according to the IDF” but it does not mean that all of them were killed by IDF. Some of them were deliberately killed by terrorists and some of them died in crossfire

@(self-proclaimed)canadian All citations above are distortions of the truth which makes Mr Clegg sickening. History knew a lot of eloquent liars.

I think it is very important that all people, including candidates, be free to criticize Israel without us turning around and calling them names or describing someone’s words as “sickening”. It seems unworthy of this site to use such a headline. What is essential, as a friend of Israel, is not to blindly accept every action but to stay open-minded and express the truth even when it is not what the current leaders of Israel want to hear; if we do otherwise, we ourselves lose credibility in the world. The politics of Israel are incredibly complex but much of the complexity has less to do with the attitudes of the British or Americans and more to do with Israel’s own internal struggle with the extreme fringe that Netanyahu has to deal with (e.g. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who is positively intractable); that element in Israel poses the same obstacles to peace as fundamentalist thinking poses everywhere: it minimizes the possibility of achieving peace or having a real conversation. Words are important as, of course, you point out: and for that reason, I think it would be wise for us we to remember that our words are powerful too. I don’t mean to sound self-righteous; I just think we have to practice being very careful about tone in such a volatile atmosphere.

I don’t care whether or not Great Britain stays in NATO so long as we get out of it. The threat of the Soviet Union invading Western Europe is long gone. Anybody who complains about high taxes but insists we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year maintaining a vast global military empire is a hypocrite. As for Israel, I want no part of their eternal feud with the Palestinians. It’s not my feud, and I can see legitimate grievances as well as evil actions on both sides.

People say that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East. But before Israel was created we had no enemies in the Middle East.

Proportionality is a fool’s game. A civilized nation should do whatever it takes to defeat its enemies while attempting never to target innocents as such.
And one mark of civilization is the absence of a death wish.

Now, which military has consistently tried to avoid killing civilians? And which people has the death wish?

As for the notion that we had no enemies in the Middle East before 1948, perhaps General Rommel and the Grand Mufti (who supported Hitler when the gates of Palestine were closed to Jews and American policy was largely indifferent to Zionism) might disagree. So the question is, do we want an ally over there or just people who really couldn’t care less if America goes the way of the British, the French and the Ottomans?

The middle east peace process has been going on for decades, but its is still a mess there. Israel is a significant drag on US strategic interests (Gen. Petraeus said in March that Isreal is a strategic burden – http://www.americanintifada.com/2010/04/04-04-02.htm). It is long past time to let someone else be Israel’s protector. Us taxpayers have supported Israel long enough (about $75 billion since 1985 – http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/134987.pdf). I agree with Aaron David Miller who does not believe that Israel or its adversaries are serious about peace. If they don’t care, why should we? America has been more than patient and more than generous. Speaking for myself, I want to end American support for Israel and just walk away. They can work things out any way they want on their own. Or, they can continue with the status quo. Enough is enough.

“I think it is very important that all people, including candidates, be free to criticize Israel without us turning around and calling them names or describing someone’s words as “sickening”. ”

I think it is very important to let Israel defend herself with the leftists turning around and calling her leaders names or describing Israel’s attacks on moslem terrorists as “collective punishment”. I am sure people can be critical of Israel – but there is no need for these terms, and people who use them lose all credibility. In fact, the only correct way would be to describe such views as “sickening” and declare the necessity for boycots and sanctions against all people who use these terms.

Things are rather complex in the Middle East, and the people who trivialize the conflict and try to invent moral equivalence between the free Jewish State of Israel and Islamo-Fascistic PLO and Hamas are actively working against peace in the region.

“Our strategic interests will not be served unless we release ourselves from that spell of default Atlanticism which has prevailed so strongly since Suez.”

“In other words, he would break the special relationship with America and go align himself with continental Europe.
For Britain to desert America would be the most unkindest cut of all.
We should have let the Nazis have them.”

……Y0u’re knowledge of history remains as lamentable as ever Sinz…….The Nazis never had the Brits…..while we were frightened to do anything Churchill and the Brits were holding the ring alone……..ultimately Hitler made the decision for us by declaring war on the US on December 11th, 1941……and by then he had his hands full fighting Britain and the Soviet Union…..and by the way we didn’t defeat Hitler……we “assisted” the Soviet Union in defeating him

……As for Clegg…..he in common with most European politicians of left and right has no intention of dying in the last ditch for Israel……basically the Israelis have succeeded in alienating all of Europe as they have the rest of the world which leaves them with the US as their only ally and that’s principally because of the strength of the Israeli lobby who basically seem to believe the capital of the US is Tel Aviv…..it isn’t……Clegg and most European politicians have this figured out……we don’t

” the people who trivialize the conflict and try to invent moral equivalence between the free Jewish State of Israel and Islamo-Fascistic PLO and Hamas are actively working against peace in the region.”

………you wouldn’t be biassed…..of course…….terrorism was ok for the Israelis when it involved assassinating British High Commisioners, blowing up hotels, or hanging British military hostages, but now apparently terrorism is only something Arabs do……ever heard of the Stern Gang?…..or how about Irgun?…..of course not!!!!!

“basically the Israelis have succeeded in alienating all of Europe as they have the rest of the world”

If fighting for your very survival as a nation alienates all of Europe, well, that’s more of an indictment of Europe than it is of Israel.

“terrorism was ok for the Israelis when it involved assassinating British High Commisioners, blowing up hotels, or hanging British military hostages, but now apparently terrorism is only something Arabs do”

Otto, leftists like you only support Jews and Israel when they are being exterminated, then you sit back and say ‘oh, the poor Jews, they’re being wiped out again, how terrible,’ and then you won’t do anything to stop it. History proves this assertion time and time again. But if Jews have the audacity to stand up for themselves, fight for their survival, and establish a nation where they won’t have to deal with mass exterminations, inquisitions, pogroms, and holocausts, you all seem to get quite offended. Why is that?

There are about 13.5 million Jews left in the world, and that’s down from their numbers in 1933, when there were about 17.5 million. Presently, there are about 1.9 BILLION Christians, about 1.1 BILLION Muslims, and about 3/4 BILLION Hindus. Take into consideration that the identification of being Jewish is as much about ethnicity as it is about being a member of a religious group, and nothing more needs to be said.

“Otto, leftists like you only support Jews and Israel when they are being exterminated, then you sit back and say ‘oh, the poor Jews, they’re being wiped out again, how terrible,’ and then you won’t do anything to stop it.”

……………Leaving aside the fact that Jews have in the main been exterminated by Rightists (Nazis, the Black Hundreds, the Iron Guard, Action Francaise etc etc) and they have generally been defended by the left I note you don’t actually rebut my comment that the Israelis were quite prepared to use terrorism when it suited them but now say it’s a bad idea. Instead you make ridiculous assertions based on nothing……..the fact is Israel has become dangerously isolated while the strategic balance has shifted against her over the last 20 years ……you seem totally oblivious of this preferring to rely on bluster and saber rattling which are proving a complete failure in a strategic sense.

Of course Israel’s policy towards Gaza is punishing to the civilain population, because the civilian population there is the enemy. They overwhelmingly supported Hamas, which means they are just as culpable for their “Eradicate Israel” raison d’etre & their warlike tactics. The UK used mass fire raids in WW ll to destroy German cities & civilians, who were ultimately feeding the Nazi war machine. So to listen to this rat lecture Israel when over a million Germans were killed by RAF Bomber Command’s area bombing campaign is a bit too much for me to take. Then add to that all the German’s after WW ONE who starved to death thanks to the Royal Navy’s blackade of German ports A YEAR AFTER the Armistice of 11/11/1918.

“Of course Israel’s policy towards Gaza is punishing to the civilain population, because the civilian population there is the enemy.”

…….So just let me make sure I’ve got this straight…….you admit the Israelis are making deliberate war on the Palestinan civilians of the west bank and gaza……and your justification for this is British (and American of course) mass bombing raids on German cities when they were engaged in a war against Nazidom that was occupying and enslaving the populations of other European states and committing genocide against the entire Jewish race that lived in their own and these occupied territories?……to such logic have Israel’s apologists been reduced

“Then add to that all the German’s after WW ONE who starved to death thanks to the Royal Navy’s blackade of German ports A YEAR AFTER the Armistice of 11/11/1918.”

……Oh and btw this one belongs with the “stabbed in the back” myth created by German nationalists, Nazis and others during the twenties and thirties to justify overturning the Versailles Treaty(the blockade was also jointly enforced with the American navy as you neglected to mention)……so in summary you accept as fact Nazi myths about WW 1 and you don’t think the British and Americans were justified in attempting to stop Nazi murder of the Jews by bringing WW 2 to an end by using mass bombing……how interesting?

It’s real easy to sit here in your ivory tower in the U.S.—protected by the strongest military in the world, surrounded by friendly neighbors—and criticize a country the size of New Jersey for engaging in policies that will decide it’s very survival. And your assertion that only ‘rightists’ have exterminated Jews while the left have defended them is pure crap. What makes Nazi Germany a right-wing regime? Whatever gave you the idea that anti-Semitism and racism are purely ‘rightist’ phenomena? I could rebut your comment with the claim that the Nazis were in fact a leftist group; after all, they were the National Socialist Party.

Throughout history, anti-Semitism has had no right or left tendencies—it’s just been anti-Jew, period. Prior to WWII, Poland, Russia and France were three of the most anti-Semitic nations on earth. Were they all ‘rightist’ regimes? In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia encouraged their citizens to slaughter thousands of Jews in their midst. The Spanish Inquisition was responsible for the forced conversions or deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the 15th century. All right-wing, I suppose.

Of course, I could make the argument that the four worst mass murderers of the 20th century were all leftists: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. So don’t give me this ‘Jews have in the main been exterminated by Rightists’ crap.

“And your assertion that only ‘rightists’ have exterminated Jews while the left have defended them is pure crap. What makes Nazi Germany a right-wing regime? Whatever gave you the idea that anti-Semitism and racism are purely ‘rightist’ phenomena? I could rebut your comment with the claim that the Nazis were in fact a leftist group; after all, they were the National Socialist Party.”

……Your lack of historical knowledge is so obvious it’s pointless arguing with you so I’ll limit myself to pointing out your most obvious examples of ignorance ………it was the right wing nationalist/conservative parties led by Hugenburg and Papen who let the Nazis into power in 1933 and not the liberal social democrats….and as for the socialist in the NSDAP title that had as much connection with reality as Bush’s “Clean Air” act…….if you think the Nazis were a left wing party then you’re off your head.

” Throughout history, anti-Semitism has had no right or left tendencies—it’s just been anti-Jew, period. Prior to WWII, Poland, Russia and France were three of the most anti-Semitic nations on earth. Were they all ‘rightist’ regimes? In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia encouraged their citizens to slaughter thousands of Jews in their midst.”

……..On the contrary anti semitism has been a feature of most right wing govt’s in modern history(I’m going to take a pass on the middle ages before the concept of political parties had even come into being)…… and it may comes a surprise to you but the Czarist regime in Russia who tolerated widespread pogroms is generally considered conservative not liberal……..You also obviously don’t know that the regime governing Poland between the wars was right wing militarist in character……and you are also completely incorrect about France in the thirties where many Jews from Germany, Austria, Poland and Czecho took refuge from persecution and for a time the govt (the Popular Front) was led by a Jew Leon Blum…….much the most anti semitic govt’s in Europe in the thirties outside of Germany were in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

” Of course, I could make the argument that the four worst mass murderers of the 20th century were all leftists: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.”

……then as ever we head off into that old favorite when you’re losing the argument…. non sequitur land……now the criteria has nothing to do with Jews………and Hitler was not a leftist……if you think this you are not only very ignorant but very stupid.

Trying to paint all anti-Semitism as a right-wing phenomenon is just pure BS, especially in light of the fact that virtually all anti-Semitism during the last decade in this country has come from the left. Case in point: how Joe Lieberman was treated in Connecticut in 2006 during his re-election bid for the senate, when he came out in support of the Iraq War.

“then as ever we head off into that old favorite when you’re losing the argument…. non sequitur land”

Non sequitur? How can that be a non sequitur when you’re attempting to establish the preposterous claim that all Jewish extermination came from the right? I merely mentioned those left-wing mass dictators to remind you that the worst mass murders in the 20th century were perpetrated by the left.

“……now the criteria has nothing to do with Jews”

Nothing to do with Jews? Stalin, one of the great mass murderers in all history, was an avowed anti-Semite…Anti-Semitism has already been historically established with the radical left in the old Soviet Union. Its zenith was during the Soviet mass murder of Jewish Bolsheviks during the ’20s and ’30s.

And if you continue to use words like ‘ignorant’ and ‘stupid’ to describe me, then I’ve got nothing more to say to you.

“And if you continue to use words like ‘ignorant’ and ’stupid’ to describe me, then I’ve got nothing more to say to you.’

……Well you certainly betray a quite staggering ignorance of historical facts as I demonstrated above and you even seem unable to distinguish between strands of popular public opinion and official govt policy…..this is a good example from your latest offering:

” Nothing to do with Jews? Stalin, one of the great mass murderers in all history, was an avowed anti-Semite…Anti-Semitism has already been historically established with the radical left in the old Soviet Union. Its zenith was during the Soviet mass murder of Jewish Bolsheviks during the ’20s and ’30s.”

……..Stalin was strictly an equal opportunity murderer……he murdered far more non Jews than Jews………his paranoia had little to do with anti semitism and indeed much of the soviet leadership who participated in the Stalin purges of the late 20′s and 30′s was Jewish……the only occasion when Stalin’s purges took on a slightly anti semitic tinge was in the late forties near the end of his reign when he launched campaigns against doctors and other professional groups that were largely Jewish……there are several excellent books by people like Conquest, Sitges and Montefiore that cover this ground……you should read some of them instead of surrendering to a compulsion to publicly demonstrate what a dope you are with ridiculous assertions like the one above about Stalin and the earlier ones about France and the nature of Nazism; or the even more loopy one that Lieberman’s primary defeat was motivated by anti Semitism.

Your ignorance is now on full display—anyone who would assert that there wasn’t an anti-Jewish tendency in Stalin’s Soviet Union is a complete idiot and completely incapable of having a rational discussion about historical facts. The anti-Semitism that pervaded the Soviet Union after 1917 was a holdover of the systemic anti-Semitism that existed for centuries during the old Russian empire, and continues to this day. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that is nothing more than a damned fool, and the more you contribute on this site, the more I’m convinced of that.

And, true to form, you completely misread my statement about how Lieberman was treated in CT during the ’06 primary…in case you’re incapable of scrolling back to have a look, this is what I said:
“how Joe Lieberman was treated in Connecticut in 2006 during his re-election bid for the senate, when he came out in support of the Iraq War.” Did I say ‘Lieberman’s primary defeat was motivated by anti Semitism’? No, I didn’t—what I was alluding to was the well-documented anti-Semitic harassment Lieberman received during the entire election cycle, in the form of phone calls and emails. That you’re incapable of acknowledging this is further proof of your idiocy.

Your worldview is completely contaminated by the fact that you obviously spend most of your time trolling on far left websites, which influences you to be nothing more than a brainless, clueless adherent to big government social liberal dogma. While you’re at it, try putting down the bong once in awhile, get out of your parents basement, and join the real world.

Frum Forum is supposed to be a right of center political blog where ideas about where the Republican Party should stand on key issues are discussed and debated. Nobody who frequents this site with that intention gives a damn about your discredited leftist rants.

“Your ignorance is now on full display—anyone who would assert that there wasn’t an anti-Jewish tendency in Stalin’s Soviet Union is a complete idiot ”

……You really should resist the impulse to demonstrate your stupidity as well as your ignorance……You might start by improving your comprehension instead of launching ill founded tirades about trolling…..I never said this and in fact specifically pointed out your inability to distinguish between strands of public opinion and official govt policy……of course anti semitism was widespread in Soviet Russia as it still is, but it was not a determinant of Soviet govt policy which is not surprising since much of Stalin’s administration was staffed by Jews who were some of the leading torturers and murderers……a similar phenomenon could have been observed in the Hapsburg Monarchy where anti semitism was just as prevalent but the govt never made anti semitic policies official govt diktat as it was in Czarist Russia……. quite the reverse in fact, the Hapsburgs being in the forefront of granting Jews civil liberties……you alas are not an ornament of the US educational system